From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SKIP_LOCKED test causes random buildfarm failures
In-reply-to: <20191114201608.m763meogfkk6qpjh@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <25294.1573077278@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20191106230111.2kmd6hnriqttw6ys@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20191107013942.GA1768@paquier.xyz> <12732.1573145425@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <5815.1573756664@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20191114201608.m763meogfkk6qpjh@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:16:08 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <10267.1573762809.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:20:09 -0500
Message-ID: <10268.1573762809@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-11-14 13:37:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As for the SKIP_LOCKED tests in vacuum.sql, what I now propose is that
>> we just remove them.  I do not see that they're offering any coverage
>> that's not completely redundant with this isolation test.  We don't
>> need to spend cycles every day on that.

> -0 on that, I'd rather just put a autovacuum_enabled = false for
> them. They're quick enough, and it's nice to have decent coverage of
> various options within the plain regression tests when possible.

If we're going to keep them in vacuum.sql, we should use the
client_min_messages fix there, as that's a full solution not just
reducing the window.  But I don't agree that these tests are worth
the cycles, given the coverage elsewhere.  The probability of breaking
this option is just not high enough to justify core-regression-test
coverage.

			regards, tom lane